Christians Preferred: Are only Literalists True Christians™?

[ElishaElijah]

That is quite the stretch.

Of course that is the reason there are so many different sects of Christianity. They tend to be based upon a charismatic leader that had his own interpretation of the Bible.

How does one test one's beliefs without relying on confirmation bias? Almost everyone's beliefs are "confirmed" when one uses confirmation bias so it is not a reliable pathway to the truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not much of an answer. Definitely not a Christian answer.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Not much of an answer. Definitely not a Christian answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is a bit better. If genuine.

I know that you do not like the hard questions that I ask. But the fact is that the same sort of "proof" that you use for your religion is used by others for theirs. It does not lead a person to the truth.

 

[Left Coast]

So what is the literal interpretation of Matt 5:30: 'If your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off'?

Origen's answer was to remove his own testicles.

 

[thomas t]

Logically, it would take perfection to correctly perceive something else as being perfect. Thus, are you claiming you're perfect?

I disagree. I'm not claiming to be perfect. Beauty, for instance, can be evaluated by unperfect beings, I think.

thus believing the Bible is perfect is indeed a form of idolatry.

no, I think there are more than just one perfect thing in the world.
In my opinion, God is perfect. But God's works can also be perfect. I see scripture as God's word.

BTW, iyo, is the Bhagavad Gita "perfect"? How can you tell if it is or isn't?

I don't know.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Origen's answer was to remove his own testicles.

He must not have known this:
“I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭5:16-26‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[Kenny]

While that may be true, just as today you have those who believe all sorts of ways about God and what scripture is and means. But it's clear that Origin was speaking from an entirely different framework than them. And it is Origin who was largely responsible for Christianity being taken seriously, as he moved it from a place of ridicule, to a well articulated philosophical/metaphysical system that had its place, that rivaled or surpassed the Greeks, whom he studied and taught.

This is a well-written article intended for both Atheists and Fundamentalists who misunderstand the reality of the early Christian church, and why is it wrong to assume the early church read the Bible literally. The Great Myths 11: Biblical Literalism - History for Atheists

Will do the read.. but certainly no space to comment on it. And certainly the topic alone that you are suggesting deserves a thread in and of itself.

To be honest, I am confused as to why they are calling those scientific theories, other than using the words hypothesis may confuse the average reader? The Theory of Evolution however is different than what you referenced here, which are hypothesis regarding the origins of life itself. That's not what the ToE encompasses.

True. And believing ToE does not prevent someone from knowing God.

There are certainly different Christian perspectives on that story. For myself, I see the entire gospels themselves as parables. So the story has significance from a spiritual perspective. To try to dissect it with science, is to completely be missing the intended point of it. This is my major problem with Creationism as a supposed "science" (which it is not). They miss the point of the story and why it was written. It wasn't to teach the earth sciences!

Only if you are labeling "Creationism" as a literal day context. Creationism, in its basic understanding, is simply that God created what we see and it wasn't by chance. He does use sciences, He created sciences.

But I see the Jesus stories as historical. As Paul said, 1 For 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. If it is only a parable, then my message is useless (even though you may find some spiritual truths within it)

Mythologies use the names of real people all the time. Homer's Odyssey certainly named real historical places and people, but I'm pretty sure the cyclops and Poseidon, were mythic figures. But this did not address my question to you, which was,

"Do you understand how that can be so, that something can be true in its meaning, while the actual story that carries that message, may be a creative invention designed in order to effectively tell a story that conveys that truth?"
Can the story of Adam and Eve been true, while the actual events of the story were purely allegorical and mythic? Can it convey the same, if not more depth of meaning to you, even if you understood they were not historical in the sense we think of historical facts today? If not, then can you explain how it can have meaning to those like me, who do not accept that they were two actual people identical as the story presents them?

Yes, mythologies do that. Yet the autobiography of George Muller, though it has places and names, remains historical. And I trust the biography of George Washington, which also has places and names, is true.

Regardless... you still can get "messages" or "truth" out of parables.

If it isn't necessary for some for them to be true to find the meaning, then why do some feel it necessary to deny science when it appears to them to be encroaching on sacred ground, that being their beliefs about God and the Bible? You won't see me trying to "disprove science" in order to protect my views of scripture. You'll see it the other way around actually welcoming the insights, in order to better understand the nature of symbolic truths.

Yes, for some this is true but I don't see science disproving it. I believe it enhances it.

I wasn't intending that analogy to be challenging that. I brought that up because you had repeated that argument I've heard out the Ken Ham camp, telling the young ones when they hear a scientist in school teaching about of evolution, to challenge them as say, "Were you there???" Which is an absolutely ridiculous argument. Yes, science was there, in effect, because they are studying real things that came from back then. That rock was there however many million years ago. It's not made up make believe. Why should he cast it that way to the minds of these impressionable youth? Fear of truth? I have to ask.

So sorry I said that and can understand why you related it to the Ken Ham camp. But I don't think that was the context of what I was saying. Communication is always difficult because I know what I said, but what you read may not have been what I said. (Through my lack of capacity.

That is why I believe in Einsteins theory of relativity where light and time are important and thus a day can be so much longer that the 24 hours we call a day.

But I would still hold to the position that man, as we know him today, was created from the ground and not an evolutionary process. Other humanoid looking people? Yes... but not man

I accept evolution, because the science is solid. I believe in God, because I have both faith, and experience of the Divine. That said, I believe God is the Ground of all Being, to use Paul Tillich's term. All that is, arises from the Divine as Source. That is, God is the Creator of everything. Evolution, is God creating, in the present continuous tense. While we can think of 'the creation' as a single event of the past, the reality is, as the science shows as well, that was the beginning. Not the end.

While the story of the Garden of Eden is set at some "time" in the past, that is an origin story, meant to relate each and everyone of us to that time, which exists within ourselves. That core union with the Divine, and falling from that deep inner origins of who we are, as creations of the Divine itself, is the story of the 'creation'.

But it's a story in a timeless past, not a fixed, historical date. Bishop Usher, had a very modernistic idea in his head, when he picked up sacred myth, and tried to approach it scientifically! Sadly, that type of thinking has impacted many generations to follow him towards that same conflation of disparate narratives. It unnecessarily confuses faith, IMO.

Again... relate, yes, but I think there is fixed, historical data but not in the sense that most people might believe.

I'll agree that humans created classification systems as part of doing good science. But I want to call out something you let slip here.

Man did not decide that humans evolved from a common primate ancestor shared by other primate species today. They discovered that to be the truth of our origins and ancestry through the tools of science, such as DNA mapping, for one. They "decided" that the data was pointing to that, and they confirmed that data and conclusions from multiple other sets of examinations. All pointing to the same conclusion.

That, is not just arbitrarily imagining it and 'just deciding' that was the case. That is a bad-faith argument, if that is what you were intending to imply?

Actually, what I find is that there are viewpoints that consider what they see. In some cases, they try to interpret what they see. But how can you consider a case when you eliminate a whole section of possibilities such as the spiritual realm? Is one really viewing what they see when they don't consider all possibilities? IMV, no. So, as the opinion that I posted where even if it is suggested, it is ridiculed, so it is impossible to correctly interpret what you see when you don't consider all factors. It become more like "This is my theory and I will only accept those parts that support my theory and throw out what doesn't". And erroneous scientific approach.

Of course science does not examine these things. It's not the right set of eyes to use to examine it. We use other sets of eyes to examine the things of the Spirit. That's an interesting perspective on animals. How do you define spirit, and how do you define soul in this context?

The soul is the mind will and emotions. We see this both in humans and in dogs, whales, et al. The spirit is what makes us eternal and is breathed in by God. It makes us like God with authority and augmented creative powers with the power to create what we can imagine.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is what I mean
“And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭4

Ok.

 

[YoursTrue]

Abiogenesis, is about how life began. Evolution, is about speciation, or how animals diversived in the ways that we see today. Why are there the species that they are, and what the process that made them that way.

The TOE deals only with what happened, after it all got going. It is not that field to look into abigenoses, as it is outside that question. So is the best egg batter to use for a recipe. While fascinating, it doesn't relate the focus of that field of research.

Why do you think it should include it? I don't understand that reasoning. Do you think that the ToE should be a scientific examination of whether or not there is a God that started it all? Should that be the focus of science for you? Examining whether or not God exists?

And yes, I believe the Bible too when it says, "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." What science shows us, is how He did that, and is doing that.

I understand that evolution is the theory of expansion of life from the beginning OF life and following its furtherance. However, one (in my opinion, of course) cannot leave out how it all began.

 

[ElishaElijah]

That is a bit better. If genuine.

I know that you do not like the hard questions that I ask. But the fact is that the same sort of "proof" that you use for your religion is used by others for theirs. It does not lead a person to the truth.

I don’t mind tough questions at all, it’s you and your reasoning. Be skeptical all you want, have your own opinions. We’ve already talked enough and any further conversations will be fruitless. I told you what my proof was, that God did in fact do
what He promised in His Word and continues to, that’s the truth. It hasn’t happened for you so you don’t believe it, so that’s you. I’ve learned a lot from different people on here on what they have found and believe, been all good. These conversations cause most people to dig into what they believe, consider other points of view.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t mind tough questions at all, it’s you and your reasoning. Be skeptical all you want, have your own opinions. We’ve already talked enough and any further conversations will be fruitless. I told you what my proof was, that God did in fact do
what He promised in His Word and continues to, that’s the truth. It hasn’t happened for you so you don’t believe it, so that’s you. I’ve learned a lot from different people on here on what they have found and believe, been all good. These conversations cause most people to dig into what they believe, consider other points of view.

And it was explained to you why your reasoning failed. You had no answer except for anger.

And no, my not believing is not upon me. That would be failure of your version of God, if he existed. Though one cannot refute all versions of God, your particular version of God can be shown not to exist since your version is logically inconsistent.

 

[ElishaElijah]

And it was explained to you why your reasoning failed. You had no answer except for anger.

And no, my not believing is not upon me. That would be failure of your version of God, if he existed. Though one cannot refute all versions of God, your particular version of God can be shown not to exist since your version is logically inconsistent.

Actually my version of God does exist and is active in Creation. Your version of my God does not exist and that I agree with.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually my version of God does exist and is active in Creation. Your version of my God does not exist and that I agree with that.

You only believe that. You do not know that. And I can explain why your version of God does not exist. But you need to be clear on what your version of God is.

Tell me, does your version of God lie?

 

[ElishaElijah]

You only believe that. You do not know that. And I can explain why your version of God does not exist. But you need to be clear on what your version of God is.

Tell me, does your version of God lie?

How do you expect to discern spiritual matters when your mind is corrupted? Anyone who is actively practicing sin will have a depraved mind and you already know what I mean by that. You’re conscience is hard in that area and you don’t even recognize it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you expect to discern spiritual matters when your mind is corrupted? Anyone who is actively practicing sin will have a depraved mind and you already know what I mean by that. You’re conscience is hard in that area and you don’t even recognize it.

How do you expect to discuss spiritual matters when your mind is corrupted?

That was a rather foolish question on your part. We can still discuss whether your God exists or not even without relying on "spiritual matters". I do not think that you even fully understand that idea. Please do not make false accusations. If I was using your "logic" I would be saying "You are not a real Christian". Even your Bible tells you that you are wrong in your false accusations:

7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

By the way, why dodge an honest question?

 

[ElishaElijah]

How do you expect to discuss spiritual matters when your mind is corrupted?

That was a rather foolish question on your part. We can still discuss whether your God exists or not even without relying on "spiritual matters". I do not think that you even fully understand that idea. Please do not make false accusations. If I was using your "logic" I would be saying "You are not a real Christian". Even your Bible tells you that you are wrong in your false accusations:

7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

By the way, why dodge an honest question?

I don’t have a false accusation or judging, you said you viewed pornography and saw nothing wrong with it. You’ve posted foul things in the past. So wouldn’t cry, you’re judging me and false accusation etc. because I wasn’t doing either one.
“If I regard iniquity in my heart, The Lord will not hear.”
‭‭Psalms‬ ‭66:18‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t have a false accusation or judging, you said you viewed pornography and saw nothing wrong with it. You’ve posted foul things in the past. So wouldn’t cry, you’re judging me and false accusation etc. because I wasn’t doing either one.

Wrong again. You judged me by saying: "How do you expect to discuss spiritual matters when your mind is corrupted?" You judge me and said that I have a corrupted mind. And it is a false accusation since you cannot support it. A book of myths that you cannot justify relying on is not good enough. You refuse to demonstrate that the Bible is valid so you eliminate your ability to use it it in a discussion.

You are avoiding a discussion of how we know that your version of God does not exist. I asked you if your God can lie. You dodged that question. I have to run and help my brother move some stuff so you can take your time in making your response. I will not be back for hours.

I do have to add, that I have never admitted to doing "foul things" You merely appear to have a very skewed moral sense.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Wrong again. You judged me by saying: "How do you expect to discuss spiritual matters when your mind is corrupted?" You judge me and said that I have a corrupted mind. And it is a false accusation since you cannot support it. A book of myths that you cannot justify relying on is not good enough. You refuse to demonstrate that the Bible is valid so you eliminate your ability to use it it in a discussion.

You are avoiding a discussion of how we know that your version of God does not exist. I asked you if your God can lie. You dodged that question. I have to run and help my brother move some stuff so you can take your time in making your response. I will not be back for hours.

Have a good one, no need for me to continue the conversation like I said it’s fruitless and a waste of time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have a good one, no need for me to continue the conversation like I said it’s fruitless and a waste of time.

\
My brother is not here yet so I can make a quick reply. It is too bad. You might have learned something. It is too bad that you will probably never know why your version of God not only does not exist but in your own words has done "foul things".